[1Ć0]

 

[ProjectEnd]

[*Almost* ] Same team [different architect] as 91 Barton, which was recently approved after far too long. This one is in association with OCAD (partial student housing) so let's hope that buys them some good will with the City. I'm...not holding my breath though.

 

[AlbertC]

Bring it on! Would love to see tons more of these throughout these side streets in Chinatown and the surrounding areas.

 

[mburrrrr]

https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...s/?id=5528005&pid=214726&title=14-GRANGE-AVE6 storeys
25.04 m 6 storeys 42 units no parking

 

[rdaner]

^Mr. Patcher is going to have some more neighbours! Lol

 

[Paclo]

Additional rendering:

Vision for surroundings:

 

[Northern Light]

Lets see, why don't we start with the site as it is:

Well, nothing to save there, and its quite the non-sequitur to the context too.

Then, we should take a look at the heritage register:

Nothing on this section of Grange Avenue is either listed or designated. This provides more breathing room, there is also no Heritage Conservation District.

Lets have a quick glance in those massing assumptions above:

Looking at the parcels they identify for six storey or taller fronting Beverly, this is the rear context up against the laneway:

Now the Beverly side:

Not sure I see the City letting the corner site go, and I don't think they should.

But the next site north seems credible enough: (however, if the corner lot becomes heritage first, there will be transition and context rules)

Looking south along Beverly, I don't see anything untouchable......but the six storey assumption on a slightly narrower road might run into a marginal shadowing issue for Grange Park. Probably not....but I'm too lazy to work out the math right now:

Now lets look at the rear of properties to the west:

The extant height would normally leave this vulnerable to privacy/overlook concerns, and the requirement for softscape is an issue too.

Here the extent to which rear yards have been minimized/hardened may serve this application usefully. The garage roof does not have privacy/overlook privileges. Nor is there much vegetation to impact w/shade.

****

Overall assessment, I can support the height/scale/massing here, and if I can, Planning can.

I think the applicant has made half-decent 'fit-in' efforts with the use of brick and colour too.

My only suggestion to the applicant would be to consider, without being pastiche a couple of small architectural touches that would make the lower facade 'fit' better w/the traditional homes.

1) Either remove the inset balconies on level 2/3, or make them projecting to the same dimensions as the neighbours.

2) Do something to soften, fit the base/podium roof line better at the front. I don't think it needs to be sloped at all (though that could be done at the expense of a balcony on level 4; I just think something like a period-fitting cornice would be nice.

Elsewise, get'er done.

 

[ADRM]

I'll be very interested to see how Planning handles this one -- it is very much not the vision that Planning has laid out for this scale/form of intensification (but, to be clear, I think this should be supported). One thing that stands out to me as being potentially problematic is laid out in the Block Context Plan that @Paclo showed above -- approving this building in this form effectively ensures that the property to its immediate west cannot be redeveloped into a similar built form; this is very often a strong sticking point for Planning (to which I am sympathetic, to a point) because of the zero lot line condition of the west-facing balconies.

 

[rdaner]

^My only comment is that the west wall should be built with the assumption that the adjoining lot will be redeveloped. Easy design solution.

 

[Northern Light]

I'll be very interested to see how Planning handles this one -- it is very much not the vision that Planning has laid out for this scale/form of intensification (but, to be clear, I think this should be supported). One thing that stands out to me as being potentially problematic is laid out in the Block Context Plan that @Paclo showed above -- approving this building in this form effectively ensures that the property to its immediate west cannot be redeveloped into a similar built form; this is very often a strong sticking point for Planning (to which I am sympathetic, to a point) because of the zero lot line condition of the west-facing balconies.

Interesting take..........clearly the assumptions made in this proposition see no further intrusion into the yellowbelt, at least not with anything beyond traditional C of A territory, into the neighbourhood interior.

You're considering the case for that.

Fair.

Now the trick is, can you position this development, in light of adjacent properties you don't own (yet) as working with future, similar-ish, built form and planning objectives?

I think you can, but not, self-evidently with a single house lot reformat. (in other words this design is not replicable on an immediately adjacent lot.

Lets look at what's extant again here:

Look at the next 5 lots, from the west, we find a vacant lot, a humdrum newer building, a weird newer building, LOL, and 2 lots that look vaguely historical from a distance:

Lets look at the 'heritage' more closely:

Structured to appear as a heritage duplex, the two sides don't match, the brick on the left is definitely not heritage, I'm not convinced if it is on the right either......., none of the windows are heritage, none of the stairs/balustrades are either, in substance or in 'feel'.

The front yards have been hardened. The one tree present is a non-native, invasive Norway Maple.

****

I think the compelling case here is for redeveloping that that entire stretch.

But now we face the current yellowbelt restrictions in how we might do that. Hmmm.

I actually see real value in an assembly here, it makes for a larger, more costly application, but I can see it, and I could sell it. But you'd want the Councillor's blessing and Planning's before you go willy-nilly buying up the block.

***

To bring this back to the current proposal..........all you need to do is sell Planning on what could be on the adjacent lot, not what you yourself will build.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Beautiful scale for this neighbourhood.

Chinatown/Baldwin area needs a blanket rezoning

 

[ProjectEnd]

The "weird newer building" is one of Teeple's best works, the Charles Pachter Studio & Residence, completed in 2005.

Pachter Studio & Residence | Teeple Architects

This new 3 storey residential project is linked to an existing artist’s studio in a vibrant downtown area between Chinatown and the Art Gallery of Ontario. Located within a narrow site widened at the existing artist’s studio toward the rear lane, a series of 1,000 square foot stacked and...

www.teeplearch.com

 

[Northern Light]

The "weird newer building" is one of Teeple's best works, the Charles Pachter Studio & Residence, completed in 2005.

Pachter Studio & Residence | Teeple Architects

This new 3 storey residential project is linked to an existing artist’s studio in a vibrant downtown area between Chinatown and the Art Gallery of Ontario. Located within a narrow site widened at the existing artist’s studio toward the rear lane, a series of 1,000 square foot stacked and...

www.teeplearch.com

We would differ on its merits.

But I wouldn't seek to debate that.

Only note that I don't see the neighbourhood rallying to save it.

 

[rdaner]

The "weird newer building" is one of Teeple's best works, the Charles Pachter Studio & Residence, completed in 2005.

Pachter Studio & Residence | Teeple Architects

This new 3 storey residential project is linked to an existing artist’s studio in a vibrant downtown area between Chinatown and the Art Gallery of Ontario. Located within a narrow site widened at the existing artist’s studio toward the rear lane, a series of 1,000 square foot stacked and...

www.teeplearch.com

So far ahead of his time!

 

[rdaner]

Does this project have one or two staircases? It must be awkward for developers knowing what to include knowing that this is changing soon but not quite yet!